Despite regulators’ best efforts, the upside from leaking corporate deals still appears too great to resist for some corporate advisers.
According to a report being released today, the percentage of mergers and acquisition deals leaked prior to public announcement in 2015 increased to 3 per cent, from 2 per cent in 2014.
The report from data room provider Intralinks found that leaked deals often resulted in higher deal prices, with the global median takeover premium for targets in leaked deals at 53 per cent, compared with 24 per cent for other transactions, the highest difference for four years.
Leaking also led to a higher incidence of targets attracting rival bids, partly explaining the better eventual price received.
“For some, the potential benefits of leaking a deal still appear to outweigh the risks,” said Philip Whitchelo, Intralinks vice-president of strategy and product marketing. “Despite increasing scrutiny and regulation, this research shows there are still obvious benefits associated with leaking a deal, including encouraging rival bids and boosting the value of bids.”
Despite the uptick in leaking, the report found Australia remained one of the strongest markets for containing sensitive information, with only France and Germany having fewer leaks.
India experienced the most, followed by Hong Kong, the US, Canada and Britain, according to Intralinks’ annual report. The data defies some longstanding perceptions that Australia was one of the “leakiest markets” in the world.
Globally, deal leaks increased to 8.6 per cent of all M&A transactions in 2015 from 6 per cent in 2014 and an average of 7.5 per cent in the prior six years, based on Intralinks’ analysis of 5024 deals announced during the period.
By sector, leaks were most common in real estate takeovers.
Full Content: Reuters
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Judge Dismisses Antitrust Lawsuit Against Ivy League Over Athletic Scholarships
Oct 11, 2024 by
CPI
FTC and DOJ Revamp Merger Guidelines to Identify Illegal Transactions More Efficiently
Oct 11, 2024 by
CPI
US Consumer Watchdog Eyes Expansion of ‘Junk Fee’ Crackdown Ahead of 2024 Election
Oct 10, 2024 by
CPI
Brazil Proposes Reform to Competition Law Targeting Big Tech
Oct 10, 2024 by
CPI
Meta Enhances User Data Control, Resolving German Antitrust Dispute
Oct 10, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh